In response to the overturn of Roe v. Wade
Facts, questions, and opinions about the Supreme Courts' Decision on Abortion.
By: Ana Palacios
In the words of Justice Kavanaugh, the “important precedent” that was Roe v. Wade has recently been overturned by the Supreme Court. The landmark 1973 ruling decreed that the right to abortion was “implicit in the 14 amendment” as part of our constitutional right to privacy. The Supreme Court's decision to overturn the ruling does not actively ban all abortions, however, it strips protections to an individual's right to have one under constitutional law, thus allowing abortion to be regulated independently by states. We are bearing witness to a lamentable ban on abortion across states, with exceptions only including the physical welfare of the child-bearer. Many are left with the same question: why can they do this?
The Supreme Court is tasked with ruling on a federal level about highly appealed cases by interpreting the constitution. In short: is this action or inaction supported by or protected per the constitution? The Supreme Court’s majority opinion then sets a precedent and standard in how federal laws are measured. While the Court’s ruling is not immediately turned into law, it does allow Congress to codify its rulings into law. What we have fallen victims to today is the court’s ability to overturn its own precedent at an arbitrary moment in time.
Comments about the court’s illegitimacy.
What is a democracy? The court’s members are not elected through voting, as are congress members, presidents, and almost anyone who is about to hold a mass amount of responsibility. Supreme Court justices are chosen and then confirmed by an act of what seems to be decisive bureaucracy. Not only that, but we are living at a time where more than one confirmed justice has been accused of sexual assault. Substantiated claims that members of congress have heard in full detail but may have overlooked when confirming Justice Kavanaugh or Justice Thomas. Not to mention, former President Trump himself had an abhorrent long repertoire of his own sexual assault allegations; it was he that was in charge of appointing justices to the supreme court. So, the election of supreme court justices is left to the democratically appointed president, yet- how come there are no conclusive requirements to fulfill this position? (what presents itself as a great opportunity for the propagation of political maneuvers!). Still, how do we justify the fact that presidents who have not won the popular vote can and have appointed multiple justices to the supreme court? Where exactly is the democratic process?
Social media is riddled with information delivered with urgency and a hint of reassurance. In the midsts, anger permeates at least my own echo chambers: calls to “abort the court,” and ‘hot-takes’ that resonate with the same ideal: the right to abortion is in fact healthcare and should be protected. Whatever happened to giving people an option? Another argument that stood out advocated for freedom of religion. What is most common to hear from the self-denominated “pro-lifers' ' is some quote from the bible, or arguments equally as archaic that cite ‘God’s will.’ Where then is the space for Jewish people who believe that abortion is justified and highly recommendable in cases where the mother's health may be in danger? Where is the freedom of religion then? Separation of the church from state?
Even if the justices' opinions (or legal reasonings) to overturn Roe v. Wade were methodical and legally pristine, where do they harness their legitimacy to do so? In any case, the people whom this ruling will impact in larger numbers had no say (and often no idea) of who is making these decisions for them. These attitudes plunge us into the search for the good old checks and balances. Since when can an authoritative body make decisions so definitive without anyone checking or balancing their power? Sure, we can turn to congress- why had they not codified the protection for abortion into federal law? Still, it is impossible to ignore the fact that the people are left out in choosing who interprets “the people’s” document.
TW: OPINION!!
It is with great lack of congruence that American citizens, especially those that can get pregnant, must now receive their government's inaction to gun violence, lack of social safety nets, and the rising cost of living with aloofness, while the government forces birth on individuals.
The response from those who advocated forced birth? The now viral posters hailed by self-proclaimed “pro-lifers’ reading “WE WILL ADOPT YOUR KIDS.” But they haven’t. As of 2020, the 407,000 children in the foster care system have likely stayed there, with most people disregarding the myriad of flaws within the system. Why has the term “pro-lifer” been coined by people who, other than forcing birth, have really no tangible interest in protecting. I did not see pro-lifers rallying for immigrant children being separated from their families… Did you?
The argument for bodily autonomy is equally as compelling. Alas, it is not like state-sanctioned murder is completely outlawed, as the death penalty is alive and well (no pun intended). Still, in the case of saving another person's life, ethics and morale are inexorable. The clearest examples appear in dramatized television productions that present to you a grief-stricken family faced with an ‘opportunity’ to save someone else’s life by donating their dead family members' organs; as bleak as that may sound, they may still choose not to do so. Even then, when in a life or death situation, no one is allowed to make that decision for the family. Further, when the defunct has given orders whether that is to donate organs or to not resuscitate, those wishes are honored and withheld as part of medical integrity. Of course, you could argue that not helping someone live is not technically the same as “killing” something (although I maintain abortion IS NOT murder), the principle is the same: bodily autonomy even when it comes to a possible death is and should be honored. The state should not be able to force anyone to give birth, as there is no legislation in place that may force one to donate organs when they pass or give all of your inheritance to charity (although it may be considered ‘the right thing to do’). Once we recognize that abortion in its own right has parameters, regulations, and an immense medical value, only then, does it make sense for it to be considered quintessential healthcare.
Yet, across the lines, there seems to be no agreement on the basis of the facts. How do we reconcile the fact that some people believe abortion occurs outside the womb after the birth of a baby? The access to abortion should above all not be a philosophical debate about when life begins, or have ambiguous characterizations. There should be none of that when regulating others' actions upon their bodies, at least. Abortion has facts, parameters, and safety all of which have been perfectly crafted and perfected. Nonetheless, pontificators of all things anti-choice have decreed that this is not the case. How can we successfully legislate when there is a ‘disagreement’ on the facts of a medical procedure that fits a Manichaean narrative?
Even still, we must continue to argue for abortion as a fundamental right for people with uteruses. Abortion is what allows women and other people who can get pregnant the possibility of some agency over their lives. In this time we may plant ourselves in an infinity of scenarios; imagining a woman in a terrible position having to make a hard choice. When, how, by who. Not all women have the same opportunities, it would be terribly naive to suggest that. Then why is it so terribly controversial to state that not all women are in a position to have a child, nor do they want to? Why is it not equally controversial for a family to kick out their pregnant daughter? Having a child is not an opportunity: it's a responsibility, and more, it is the future of women, of people with uteruses. We as a society can no longer force individuals to bear a responsibility they outspokenly are not ready to undertake: the responsibility of another human being.
Comment your thoughts and follow @fadeintohueofficial
Comments